[PS4] Free Upgrade to 100GB Cloud Storage for PlayStation Plus Members (Previously 10GB)

724

Some good news for PS4 owners with an active PS Plus membership.

We will be expanding our cloud storage space from 10GB to 100GB for PS Plus members — giving PS4 owners even more space to keep all those game saves. With cloud storage, you can save your game progress and character profiles on one PS4 system, and then continue the game on another system later without losing progress.

Related Stores

PlayStation
PlayStation

Comments

  • +14 votes

    100GB for game saves and profiles? Why?

    • +4 votes

      Because most game save data this generation already takes up dozens of megabytes each, and often more. It's future proofing for next gen.

      • +21 votes

        "Dozens of megabytes"- I think 10gb already covers that

      • +10 votes

        Everything is moving to the cloud - it's concerning. AU internet is neither fast enough nor stable enough (except for the lucky few on FTTP) to handle the upcoming purely digital age.

        • +12 votes

          And that's because the Australian population continues to vote for economic zealots, meaning both parties, who are only interested in handing over everyone else's money to the wealthy. As shown by behavior.

          Which is why they have privatised every single thing that they possibly can. And as everyone can plainly, see the private sector is (profanity) hopeless compared to the Government doing … well, everything but obviously it's economically retarded to let the private sector handle accomodation, electricity, telcommuncations, gas, water, housing trust etc.

          The first three particularly. Because when the private sector offers it's shitty ripoffs to things that effect the whole economy, including every single business and household, like electricity and internet, then the entire economy stagnates just like it is now, as 70% of people spend most of their money on housing, electricity and internet. And half the country cannot use the digital economy.

          • -21 votes

            @Diji1: Vote Clive Palmer, Australia First party…

          • -4 votes

            @Diji1: No wonder the world is a mess. No one actually knows anything about politics any more (or is it that the clueless now make their views heard?) and just jump on any bandwagon if it's moaning about how awful politicians are.

            Your rant is truly nonsensical - accommodation but not "housing trust", electricity but not gas, "telecommunications" but not water are all particularly important and should be government run? That's utter gibberish but, as I said before, people like it regardless because you're moaning about politicians and CEOs.

            • -3 votes

              @callum9999: He's one of those people who want the government to run everything because the government doesn't care about going over budget or operating at a loss, so things can stay cheap forever. Those debts from budget deficits are for your grand children to pay back if they care about it being paid back at all. Could always borrow more.

              If you want to 'win', buy shares in the greedy private sector that's ripping off consumers. When they win, you win. One way or another.

          • -2 votes

            @Diji1:

            who are only interested in handing over everyone else's money to the wealthy. As shown by behavior.

            50% of the population pay no net tax (benefits included). The redistribution is going the opposite direction of what you claim.

            You're knocking the private sector but the government built the spotty NBN. In a few years cheaper and faster 5G will wipe the floor with the NBN. Billions will be written off as a loss.

            And as everyone can plainly, see the private sector is (profanity) hopeless compared to the Government doing … well, everything but obviously it's economically retarded to let the private sector handle accomodation, electricity, telcommuncations, gas, water, housing trust etc.

            Your argument that government is better at "everything" is a riot! Few lefties even dare make that claim - though, as we see with Corbyn and AOC times are a changing, all things old need to be painfully learnt again by future generations.

            Hmm, if only there were examples in history to reference to see if your suggestions would work…

        • -1 vote

          Movies, music and now games are moving to a service model, hardly concerning…

        • +9 votes

          I have fttp. Y’all should have voted labor.

        •  

          even on FTTP really depends on your area, i'm on FTTP and have constant problems as NBN screwed up the backhaul in our area, i've moved service providers the problem continues and all my neighbours suffer from slow speeds and constant disconnections. Gaming ping is pretty bad too

        • +1 vote

          I for one enjoy the cloud and am glad I'll never lose years worth of pictures and other such to the void again

          • +1 vote

            @drumrollplease: I enjoy it too. Our school has moved onto a purely cloud network so for all IT subjects/courses everything is uploaded and most of it is even done through the cloud. It's very convenient to not have to carry a USB around like the old days but instead just go home and instantly start working on your assignment. Funny to think that even a school thinks that Cloud is the future but our older population seems to think there's simply no need for connection that isn't 100 years old.

        •  

          I live at home still and we got FTTN with a 100mbps/50mbps plan we get around 88mbps download and 42mbps upload. Having a good upload speed is just something you really need in this day and age.

          When we were on ADSL2 if I shot a short video on my phone it'd be a few hundred meg and just make our internet entirely unusable for hrs at a time while my phone attempted to upload it over the 50kb/s upload speed we got.

          Worse if my wifi dropped out or I went out and came back home the phone would start the upload over from the beginning rather than resuming it.

          I think a few times i'd shot a longer video that came in around 500mb and it took it over 3 weeks to finally sync it and stop draining my battery with the wifi constantly being engaged and killing our internet.

          I want to move out either this year or next and i'm worried I won't be able to get a place with NBN or a place that has FTTN and is too far from the node for a decent connection, we definitely don't have a worthwhile broadband network in Australia thanks to them slashing the FTTP. FTTC would be a good compromise but why are they still rolling out FTTN for a number of future deployments? My friend still has to wait until 2022 for FTTN by the roadmap website.

          •  

            @Agret: I live in on a main road in a big suburb and from what I've heard from friends the speeds are only 2-4x better than ADSL2+ at max. I think you got lucky mate so enjoy it while you can. I have the same upload speed as you did and the same issue. Whenever I'm uploading files, my internet just dies. And it takes 10 years to even upload a small file.
            Our FTTN rollout was scheduled for early 2017 but has been delayed to late 2019, however, I've seen some nodes being set up nearby, so it gives me hope that I might actually get FTTN by the end of this year.
            If you can, just don't compromise and find a place with FTTP. Even if the speeds aren't much better it will at least be stable. I'm young, so I care about internet more than most Australians. Which sucks, because I get cucked from our ISP and government with every passing day.
            Also R.I.P your friend.

    • +16 votes

      Before the change over to 100GB, I was using 9.6GB - so the increase is a welcome change for people like me. Especially with the eventual release of the PS5.

      Just because it doesn't serve any benefit or make sense to you directly, doesn't mean it's not beneficial to others.

      •  

        How many games do you have?
        9.6GB is a lot for game saves.

        • +1 vote

          I have a few hundred and I'm only at 3 or so, including shit like two Disney Infinity games with a couple hundred each, and 3 versions of DriveClub, each with a good hundred or so of replays and stuff…

        • +3 votes

          NBA2K14 took 1G save data already for some reason. Some other games take 1xxmb.

        •  

          He's basically an outlier.

          I've used less than 1GB.

          Granted I do not take screenshots or captures. Someone who captures a lot will use up more.

        • +2 votes

          A large amount of games, I've never sat there and counted though.

          It all adds up obviously, but for example, a recent playthrough of Blue Reflection is 60MB (which is a simple game in terms of saves), Horizon Zero Dawn is 150MB (unfinished), Driveclub is 400MB, Project CARS is 300MB… Even something simple like Rocket League and one of the Danganronpa games are more than 100MB. I don't delete any save data, so I have games going all the way back to Minecraft (200MB) and further.

          Dunno why I'm getting downvotes… It's a future proofing measure at the very least, especially considering we're moving more and more into a digital platform.

          •  

            @Goldfire: Sony's network as it exists right now, cannot possibly handle an all digital platform. Speeds are pretty poor. They are in no way ready for this 'future' we are proofing against.

            • +1 vote

              @lostn: Eh, it fully utilises my 100Mbps down connection as it is, PSN speeds aren't an issue for me.

              I didn't say an all digital platform either, we're moving more and more into it.

              • +1 vote

                @Goldfire: That's weird. I only get a fraction of my 100MBps. A lot of Americans complain about it being piss slow also.

              •  

                @Goldfire: Mine uses around 25-35mbps while downloading even though on my computer I can get 88mbps as my maximum download speed. PS4 plugged into the same gigabit switch.

                •  

                  @Agret: I find if you pause and resume the download it speeds up. Also it's slow whilst you're running another app/game.

                  I have 115mbps and it fully utilises it

    • +4 votes

      It’s better to have more without paying more. What’s the problem? You think Sony should be like Apple charging for extra storage?

      •  

        When Sony giveth with one hand, they taketh away with the other (PS+ free games for PS3 and Vita).

        Except what they tooketh away was a lot more meaningful to me than what they gaveth.

        More attention should be drawn towards how they will compensate for the removal of 4 games a month. This doesn't cut it because I won't even use up 10GB much less 100GB, and if you do, I'd say you're in the minority.

        • +1 vote

          To use your own phrase, you're basically an outlier.

          I've been a ps+ subscriber for a good 6+ years, bit of late (last few years) I've been adding the ps3 games but with no real intent to play them.
          Vita games are the same deal, I add them each month, but all I ever seem to use my vita for is remote ps4 play.

          In the end, I'm sure they have all the play hrs logged (or even opened on a console) of the ps3/Vita games given away and it worked out no longer cost effective to write cheques to the publishers for games people hardly played.

          • -2 votes

            @Spiderboy: I'm sure they could go a step further and stop giving PS4 games too if they want to be more cost effective.

            It's not like the quality of the games have been any higher than the PS3/Vita games they were giving out.

            I'm willing to bet more people will have played a PS3 or Vita freebie a month than will reach 100GB in save files. They could have made it 1TB and it wouldn't make a difference to their bottom line, because very few will use it all up. So they get to look good without actually providing what they offer for most people. It's a win-win for them.

            Meanwhile, games with Gold is going to smash PS+ in value. They can afford to catch fire for now because they're so far in the lead, but when next gen begins and everyone's at a clean slate, they can't continue their hubris because they won't have a gargantuan lead to fall back on.

            •  

              @lostn: I know your just being smart with that comment, but that would be counter productive and have all the non-online gamers drop thier service as soon as their subscription lapsed. The short of it, the 'free' ps4 games are the selling point of the service, just as the games for gold.

              I have no doubt that more people would play the last gen/small install based hand held than reach 100gb, but on the same side of the coin I'm sure a lot more users would go over 10gb in saves than play the older games.

              Considering the service has been going for quite some time, yet the ps3 has all but stopped seeing anything but indies, theres only so many games left to add to the service.

              If it wasn't for the fact the xbone is backwards compatible, microsoft would ditch 360 games by now or soon after sony pulled the plug, probably to push more to their games live service.

              •  

                @Spiderboy:

                I know your just being smart with that comment, but that would be counter productive and have all t h e non-online gamers drop th er service as soon as their subscription lapsed.

                Yes, like me. Except where they get you is that you can't play older freebies without a current subscription. That's the only thing that has kept me paying.

                Since the games suck anyway, if I had a choice, I'd rather they dropped the free PS4 games and spent the money being used to write paychecks to developers to improve the online service instead. Anyone who has used both Xbox Live and PSN will tell you that both the store and the online experience is miles ahead on the Xbox. And they did it without cutting the free games.

                Considering the service has been going for quite some time, yet the ps3 has all but stopped seeing anything but indies, theres only so many games left to add to the service.

                My goodness. There are a ton of older games that are good that they never gave out. Same with on Vita. Their best game (imo) is Persona 4 Golden, and that's yet to be given away. You're not getting NEW PS3 games because the system is EOL, but it doesn't mean they've given away everything in their back catalog. In your 6 years of PS+ you would have collected 144 PS3 games. The PS3 library stands at 1441 disc based games lol. That's 10 times the amount you have and doesn't include digital games which outnumber the disc based games by a huge margin because that includes all the indies. So the lack of new games is irrelevant. Even if there were still new PS3 games, you wouldn't have gotten those on PS+ anyway.

                It's been so pathetic that some months you don't even get 6 unique games because they give games that are cross play and it is counting towards two quotas (PS3 and Vita).

                If it wasn't for the fact the xbone is backwards compatible, microsoft would ditch 360 games by now or soon after sony pulled the plug, probably to push more to their games live service.

                Backcompat is an argument that older gen games matter and people play them. If they didn't, MS wouldn't have even bothered with BC.

                •  

                  @lostn: Before continuing, I will say I would have liked the Vita / cross platform games to have continued.

                  The ps3 catalogue might stand at 1441 disc based as you say, but once you split those down into english releases, games that publishers would allow (and accept a value sony would offer), and those that might offer any kind of interest to general gamers, that number would be considerably less.
                  As you said only disc based, but a lot of downloadable no one would have heard anything about, or are so small that again would hold no interest to the majority.

                  MS b/c implementation came as it was easy headlines and library boosting (on paper) for what at the time was a struggling console, and as they've kept their x86 architecture was straight forward.
                  For sony backwards compatibility was hardware based, and not cost effective as seen back with the Ps3 for ps2 compatibility.

                  If this year brought a new console release, would you still expect them to release the ps3, being that it would be old-old gen?

                  •  

                    @Spiderboy:

                    The ps3 catalogue might stand at 1441 disc based as you say, but once you split those down into english releases

                    A majority of those are available in English.

                    games that publishers would allow (and accept a value sony would offer)

                    True, but I've seen a lot of games long ago when the service was new that would be in this category. I presume you mean good games, ones people would actually buy. The number being given out has dropped as Sony gained momentum.

                    You cannot possibly tell me there are no games left to hand out. Even after you deduct the ones hard to license or Japanese only. Not with 1441 games to choose from.

                    As you said only disc based, but a lot of downloadable no one would have heard anything about, or are so small that again would hold no interest to the majority.

                    Downloadable games actually outnumber disc based games. And guess what? Games that are "so small that again would hold no interest to the majority" are precisely what they've been giving out these last few years. I haven't even heard of a lot of them.

                    MS b/c implementation came as it was easy headlines and library boosting (on paper) for what at the time was a struggling console

                    Very true. But you know what? When Sony offered PS+ starting on PS3 as a service that offers free games, it was also for easy headlines because the console was struggling. MS was not offering anything equivalent. Sony was doing free online, MS was charging for it. The price you were paying for PS+ got you games and the online was free. On Xbox you had to pay just for online, and there were no free games. As Sony and MS's fortunes reversed, the value on PS+ dropped (you needed it for online now) and MS started matching the free games offer. The loser always gives more value while the leader takes value away, as Sony is doing now. Xbox has been chasing this gen, and that is why you have Game Pass, Back-compat, and cross play. Next gen when their lead is reset to 0, will Sony be able to continue the way they are?

                    You may say BC is easy headlines, but the latest patent from Sony shows that they are going to add BC to PS5 for older consoles. So maybe it's a bigger deal than you think.

                    and as they've kept their x86 architecture was straight forward.

                    This is incorrect. The Xbox One does use x86 architecture, but the 360 did not. That used PowerPC, same as Wii U and PS3. It is not a straight forward emulation job at all. It is a great feat that they've even managed to pull it off. There is nothing powerful or special about XB1. It's just a weak PC. If it were easy to emulate 360, the PC would have an emulator also. And not only have they managed to get 360 BC on XB1, they even got OG Xbox BC on XB1. To my knowledge, no one has been able to emulate OG Xbox games even on the PC, and that is a very old console.

                    It was remarkable genius that MS's engineers managed to figure out 360 BC on the XB1. Sony's solution was to buy Gaikai and offer the very poor value Playstation Now which charged you a lot of money to stream a very small selection of old games. It cost them around $400 million to acquire Gaikai. Imagine if they put those resources into working on PS3 emulation, and they had the talent to pull it off. What MS did is clearly more impressive than PS Now.

                    You know what's funny though? PS3 emulation is already possible on the PC. The community managed to figure it out before Sony did. And they know all the secrets of their own console.

                    If this year brought a new console release, would you still expect them to release the ps3, being that it would be old-old gen?

                    Not if they give PS5 games with PS+. If they maintain 6 free games, they can drop one of PS3 or Vita. I might be misremembering, but I thought they gave out PSP games initially, and replaced them with Vita games later. I could be wrong on that, but otherwise my expectations still stand. Maintain the 6 games, or reduce the price of PS+ accordingly.

      •  

        A) Free upgrades are always welcome but it's an odd thing to advertise as a perk when so few will be affected.
        B) It should be unlimited storage for save games since you're buying both games and subscription. Cloud space should not be a concern.

    •  

      I ran out of the 10GB a fair while ago -> I play a lot of games though, and some that seem perhaps not as optimised take around 0.5GB on their own.

      Definitely appreciated on my end so I don't have to go through and delete old game saves which I've had to do multiple times.

  • +7 votes

    Cloud storage should be infinite and free for game saves.

    Nintendo, I'm looking at you.

    • +1 vote

      Well, it's infinite on Nintendo at least, AFAIK.

    • +1 vote

      Both paid and not free what's the point?

    • +6 votes

      Xbox One has infinite cloud save storage and it's 100% free. Not locked behind a subscription. Although to be fair these Gold/PS+ subscriptions offer so very little real value (paying to use your own internet in peer to peer shouldn't be a thing) so I guess they have to add some value to it.

      • +2 votes

        The only value I get from it is being able to continue to play past PS+ freebies. If I could continue playing them without PS+, I would have canceled it a few years ago when the offerings were relegated mostly to obscure indie games I'd never heard of.

  • +7 votes

    This is more of a PSA than a deal.

  •  

    its about time… ps saves have been a nightmare for a while… ps store is way way 2 slow, and region locking dlc's is anti gamer.

    no fan of micro but the platform is friendlier, the console is more powerful and less regional blocks.

    playstation has a lot of ground to make up yet…

    but both platforms digital pricing in au suck.

    • +1 vote

      DLC is locked to the region of the base game. Base games are not region locked. So pick the region you prefer for the DLC on the base game itself.

      Does MS let you buy cross region DLC?

      •  

        I buy some PS4 games in physical copies locally and then buy the DLC on my US PlayStation account and it works no problems.

        •  

          digital must be in same region unlike xbox.

          also this still doesn't always work on physical - buyer beware so at your own risk.

          I don't recommend this until sony clears it - and publishes cross region buying

  •  

    Thought I saw something on the PS Store last night that it was also to do with game sharing with your friends.

  • +7 votes

    It's a paid service, nothing free about it.

    • +6 votes

      Op didn’t say it was totally free. He said it was free for those who have the service.

      • +1 vote

        I agree with this comment. You pay for it as part of your service. This is being increased because of the dropping of the PS3 and vita game drops from next month onwards. They are making up for it. Hopefully they also do something else ontop of this. Also I am pretty sure you don't need to do anything to get this as part of your service. Its automatic. I think this is forum material.

        • -2 votes

          If he could read, he would see that the title says "Free Upgrade to 100GB Cloud Storage for PlayStation Plus Members".

          He never said that Playstation Plus is free. Only that the upgrade is free to those already paying. Lack of reading comprehension isn't worthy of a neg.

          • +1 vote

            @lostn: I never said "Playstation Plus is free" either. Maybe it is not me that has the lack of reading comprehension. They increased it because other things are being taken away and this is part of your paid service where they have changed what you get for what you pay. Sure it is good that they have done this but does it make up for what they have taken away? Not so sure.

    • +3 votes

      Agree on the neg. It's nice, sure, but an upgrade of a feature that you get with a paid service does not a bargain make, lest every time any cloud service upgrades it will merit a post. What is next? A post for every time an extra show is released on Netflix?

      • +3 votes

        Agree on the neg. It's nice, sure, but an upgrade of a feature that you get with a paid service does not a bargain make, lest every time any cloud service upgrades it will merit a post.

        I disagree with that. If for example you're paying an ISP for 50/20 Mbps internet and they upgrade it to 100/40 Mbps as a promo without adding to the price (this has happened several times before btw), would that not be worthy of a post or considered a bargain? That is exactly the same scenario as this. The upgrade could be enough to entice those not paying for the deal to take up the deal, which is precisely the point of deal posts.

        Or if Onedrive gave you more GB storage for the same price, would that not also be worth posting?

        If you're saying deals shouldn't be posted if they're restricted to those who have paid for access, then all deals from Costco should be banned, any deal involving AMEX credits should also be excluded because not everyone has AMEX, deals that require Ebay Plus or Prime also, or deals requiring access to an EPP program like Good Guys Commercial or JBHifi Commercial. You get the point.

        You can criticise its value, but the post is within guidelines.

        A post for every time an extra show is released on Netflix?

        We get that every month for Games with Gold and PS+ 'free' games for the month. The mods have declared it acceptable.

        I don't disagree that this deal is nothing to write home about, but not for the reasons you've stated.

        • +1 vote

          Fair opinion.

          Just to reply for part, though,

          Or if Onedrive gave you more GB storage for the same price, would that not also be worth posting?

          Correct. I would not.

          If Onedrive only had one tier, and then decided to up the allowance of that single tier, I wouldn’t think it worth posting.

          However if Onedrive previously offered x amount of space for a higher price, and has now dropped the price, I consider that worth posting.

          You are not saving any money here, because PS plus has never offered any different storage tiers. Therefore it was never an incentive to sign up (I can get x amount more for n amount more per month!) Therefore, this isn’t worth posting to me.

          But I also don’t think PS Plus games should be posted as bargains either (forum material IMO), so what do I know? 😝

  • +7 votes

    Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm using full advantage of this.

    Defeat a boss - save.

    Pick up a health potion - save.

    Move forward one step - oh you better believe that's a save.

    •  

      Most games these days don't let you save scum like that. They use a checkpoint system. Even if you manually save, you go back to the last checkpoint if you load it.

      Also, most games have a maximum number of saves. So even if you save every 5 seconds, you will end up using up all of your save slots and have to overwrite an old save. Which means you do not use up more MB than anyone that doesn't save scum. I like to save at the beginning of every chapter/level, and I don't recall any games where I've managed to get through a game and not overwrite an old save.

      Some games just use one save file and you can't manually save.

  •  

    Never signed up for PSP. I like the offline for the moment because my internet is unreliable and I don't have time to chase up the ISP all the time for it and I am on a tight budget.

  •  

    This is instead of 4 free games. Would not call this a win

    • -1 vote

      First up, we have For Honor, the melee action game from Ubisoft. Experience the chaos of war and choose between Viking, Knight, and Samurai factions to find your perfect fighting style. Featuring 18 different PvP maps, this game will be sure to entertain you.

      Next up, we have Hitman: The Complete First Season. Take on the role of Agent 47, the world’s ultimate assassin. Travel the globe to eliminate your targets in traditional and less traditional ways. From sniper rifles to expired spaghetti sauce, use the weapons at your disposal to become the master assassin.

      This month’s PlayStation Plus lineup also includes:

      • Divekick, PS3 (Cross-Buy with PS Vita)
      • Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, PS3
      • Gunhouse, PS Vita (Cross-Buy with PS4)
      • Rogue Aces, PS Vita (Cross-Buy with PS4)
    • +1 vote

      Agreed. I don't think they can afford to be this anti consumer next gen when both consoles reset to 0.

      PS+'s value was already pretty spotty. Now it's even worse.

      Meanwhile, MS gives you access to most of their first party library and day and date new releases for $10 USD a month. That shits all over PS+. If they continue this into Xbox 2, and Sony does not offer a similar deal, they might fall behind next gen.

      • +2 votes

        Different service.

        • -1 vote

          No shit.

          A service that doesn't exist on PS4 because Sony would never do anything that generous. They'd rather take value away than offer more value.

          A service that PS4 does have an equivalent to is Games with Gold including with Xbox Live. And not only is the online infrastructure better, the games being given out are better too.

          But nothing Sony does will ever compete with Game Pass.

          • +3 votes

            @lostn:

            no shit

            Well you go from ps+ to comparing it to comparing it to game pass in how it doesn't represent value?

            Game pass doesnt bring online gaming, where as gold doesnt bring some new first party games straight away. So really its 1 service doesn't compare to 2 services? No shit. :)

            As for quality of games released on both services compared to the other, thats very debatable.

            •  

              @Spiderboy: I'm not comparing them directly. I'm saying MS are giving you an incredible value product on top of a good value product while Sony is not giving either.

              XBL already kills PS+. Game Pass on top of that pisses on PS+'s grave.

              As for quality of games released on both services compared to the other, thats very debatable.

              It really isn't any more than saying game A is better than game B because I prefer that kind of game. GWG gives AAA games a lot more regularly. PS+ very rarely does. GWG is not reducing the number of games given out, PS+ is.

              • -1 vote

                @lostn: Ok, well if seems your what some would call fanboy dot points have really ramped up, so I'm going to put the phone in the pocket, walk past my consoles (from all 3 current manufacturer offspring) I have very little time for since family life has taken over, and leave you be before you flash your 'microsoft 4 life' tatt.

                •  

                  @Spiderboy: Fanboy. Funny that. I was called a Sony fanboy in another thread here.

                  Seriously, is that the best you can do? Call me a MS fanboy when I own the PS3, PS4, and the Vita? What MS fanboy would buy all of Sony's consoles? Would I even be playing those older Sony devices if I was an MS fanboy?

                  I'm neutral. I call out BS no matter which anus it is coming from. In this case it is Sony's, but Microsoft is not immune to criticism. Another example here

                  I don't even own an Xbox One btw. I'm a PS4 player when it comes to consoles. But I'm able to recognize when they do things right and when Sony does them wrong.

      •  

        This is just dumb. Why would you compare game pass to ps+?

        • +1 vote

          See comment above. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6943652/redir

          If it wasn't already obvious that I wasn't comparing them, I mentioned the cost of Game PAss being $10 USD a month which is double the price of XBL and PS+, which makes it not the same thing. I pointed it out to illustrate a point: value. Something Sony no longer cares about because of their insurmountable lead.

          •  

            @lostn: I can see value in gamepass, but to say that it kills ps+? Is xbl better than ps+ I'm terms of sla up time. Marginally. In terms of games offered per month? Debatable.

            https://m.au.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PlayStation_Plus_vs._Gam...

            No doubt that ps is removing value, but for 2 platforms that are essentially eol, is it really?

          •  

            @lostn: I own both PS4 Pro and XB1X. My view on GamePass isn't very positive. Let's look at 2018, really, the only worthy first party exclusive is Forza Horizon 4. Now, as good as it is, after 4 weeks, you basically gone through all 4 seasons. For FH4, you still need XBox Live Gold to play the online part. So to fully enjoy the game, you need both.

            Third party games, if they are must play for me, I would have bought them (rather than wait that long). So if I played them through GamePass, they weren't must play for me anyway. Experience on those games for me are generally mixed, especially if I opted to complete GamePass goal rewards, which can sometimes involve games I really don't like to play. Most of the time, I tried them out and realised my original decision was right - i.e. don't get them. The number of 3rd party GamePass titles I actually completed in 2018 is zero (the most played one was still less than 20%).

            Don't get me wrong, I applaud Microsoft for adding future first party exclusives to GamePass on launch day. But to date, I simply joined GamePass when it is $1 / month. There is no real incentive to have it constantly. It's also annoying when Microsoft adds games I own to GamePass. I used to buy a lot of XB1 first party exclusive games.

            XBox Live Gold, generally for online, it is better than PS Plus for sure. Game with gold free games, the quality obviously dropped since the introduction of GamePass. PS Plus free games are better. Let's not forget you don't have to have PS Plus to play fortnite online, but you need XB Live Gold on XB1.

            Also, I cannot help but noticed quite a number of GamePass games eventually got added to PS Plus. Feb 2019 is a good example. Both PS4 Plus free games are on GamePass currently. Sure, a few months later, but you get to own them.

            First party exclusives on GamePass right away, sure it is fantastic. But, Microsoft, you've got to release more quality first party exclusives every year. Just 1 quality one for entire 2018 isn't good enough.

  •  

    How is this a deal? Isn' this a standard upgrade to whoever is on PS+ anyways?

    • +2 votes

      It's increased value. For some people anyway.

      It's not a 'standard' upgrade because they haven't given away an extra 90GB before.

  • +1 vote

    Very happy about this; I've been getting error messages for about a year now when PSN would try and upload my save data for games as my cloud was full. Wasn't sure if it was just me or not!

  •  

    If im paying for extra cloud storage especially 100gb as part of my Plus subscription then I should be able to use it for anything I want not just playstation data, its what i would expect if I was paying someone else for cloud storage.

  • Top